6 ms·

pcunite - we've discussed in another thread, but the election was actually quite close. HRC had more of the popular vote, and a 1% shift from Trump to Clinton w

pcunite - we've discussed in another thread, but the election was actually quite close. HRC had more of the popular vote, and a 1% shift from Trump to Clinton would have resulted in her victory. Here's an excellent analysis from five-thirty-eight: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-perc...

pcunite 10y ago
I understand what is being reported now. I'm referring to my sense of awareness before the election. It looked like a big win - to me at least.
fixxer 10y ago
Sure, but the polls being published and "marketed" had her with an insurmountable lead. Silver had her at 70% and that was generous to Trump compared to many. This isn't about the polls being wrong because the race was tight. Many misrepresented likely turnout (because many are incompetent and thought the 2016 electorate was going to be the 2012 electorate) and the media pumped up those same HRC favorable polls while the pundits attacked the validity of what turned out to be better polls (LA Times). It sure looked like a propaganda machine to me, but I'm just one of those deplorables.
- grzm 10y ago
  Some honest questions: Do you think it's worth polling at all? Do you think it's possible they made honest mistakes in their models? If you're voting in the election, you're going to have an opinion. Is it possible to work on polling honestly while being an eligible voter? Personally, I think polling is worthwhile. I think it's possible they made honest (and sometimes incompetent, but not malicious) mistakes, and acknowledge that attempting to predict the outcome of a future event is inherently difficult. I think it is possible to do honest work while still voting.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Polls are useful for the campaign as part of media optimization and field strategy. In terms of value to the electorate, I think polls are anti-value: they are presented to generate response, be it entertainment or motivation. The electorate needs to held accountable for turnout, not tricked into it. I don't believe in requiring voting, but I despise the methods used to GOTV. Either you possess civic engagement or you don't
    - grzm 10y ago
      The connection you make between polls and GOTV is interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, as I understand it, the campaign is the candidate and the people working to get the candidate elected. The campaign can legitimately use polls to decide where to allocate resources (e.g., money for ad buys, themes for ads, on-the-ground person-to-person outreach). However, it's not legitimate for a campaign to publicize the poll numbers, as voters should be motivated by the campaign's message rather than by fear of being behind in the polls. Is this a fair representation of what you're saying? I don't feel I've captured it quite right, as I can't figure out how to tie in the entertainment aspect of polls. Also, I'm not happy with my choice of the word "fear" as the driving aspect of motivation. Acknowledging that I may not have captured your argument correctly, I'm going to move forward, fully willing to abandon it if it ends up relying on parts that I've misunderstood. For one, I'm not sure where to draw the line of who is involved in a campaign, and therefore who should know about poll results. There are people who are paid to work on the campaign, so it seems clear they are part of the campaign. And there are people who spend a lot of time volunteering, so I think it's fair to consider them as part of the campaign. There are people who volunteer less, for example donating a few evenings working for phone banks, or perhaps working in IT or data management, or working on the polls themselves. Then there are people who aren't directly working for the campaign, but are passionate about their candidate (or perhaps passionately opposed to another), and either work on their own or self-organize. Maybe the line is that only people who are involved in decisions that require polling data should know the results? What justifies "needs to know"? Another question I have is about GOTV in general. The numbers I've seen show that over 40% of eligible voters didn't vote in the 2016 election. I think we agree that more people should vote. Some GOTV methods I've seen are general, non-partisan "Please vote" campaigns. Partisan ads often include admonishments to vote. There are also programs to help people get to the polls (for example, rides). Some of these are non-partisan, some partisan. Are these legitimate GOTV efforts? If the electorate is to be accountable for turnout, what other methods can they use? Should partisan ride-providing efforts have access to poll data to best allocate their resources? How about non-partisan groups, as polls may show which areas are expected to have lower turnout? As I said, I've responded to what I interpreted as your position before confirming that my interpretation is correct. I've done this in the interest of expediency, not to build a straw man. So please let me know how my interpretation can be improved if it's not correct. Thanks!
- mikeash 10y ago
  Did they have her with an insurmountable lead, or did they have her with a decent lead still within the margin of error which got misinterpreted? I'm starting to wonder if the overconfidence in a Clinton victory boils down to assuming that errors are independent when they really aren't. Specifically, did they assume swing states might go one way or the other individually, rather than that they might move as a block? There was a lot of talk about how there were a bunch of states that favored Clinton and she only needed to win one of them. Pulling numbers out of my rear end, if she had a 50% chance of winning each of 8 states, and she only needed one, you might assume her odds of winning the election are 99.6% (255 out of 256). But if they all swing together, then her odds of winning would only be 50%.

pcunite 10y ago

I understand what is being reported now. I'm referring to my sense of awareness before the election. It looked like a big win - to me at least.

fixxer 10y ago

Sure, but the polls being published and "marketed" had her with an insurmountable lead. Silver had her at 70% and that was generous to Trump compared to many. This isn't about the polls being wrong because the race was tight. Many misrepresented likely turnout (because many are incompetent and thought the 2016 electorate was going to be the 2012 electorate) and the media pumped up those same HRC favorable polls while the pundits attacked the validity of what turned out to be better polls (LA Times). It sure looked like a propaganda machine to me, but I'm just one of those deplorables.

grzm 10y ago
Some honest questions: Do you think it's worth polling at all? Do you think it's possible they made honest mistakes in their models? If you're voting in the election, you're going to have an opinion. Is it possible to work on polling honestly while being an eligible voter? Personally, I think polling is worthwhile. I think it's possible they made honest (and sometimes incompetent, but not malicious) mistakes, and acknowledge that attempting to predict the outcome of a future event is inherently difficult. I think it is possible to do honest work while still voting.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Polls are useful for the campaign as part of media optimization and field strategy. In terms of value to the electorate, I think polls are anti-value: they are presented to generate response, be it entertainment or motivation. The electorate needs to held accountable for turnout, not tricked into it. I don't believe in requiring voting, but I despise the methods used to GOTV. Either you possess civic engagement or you don't
  - grzm 10y ago
    The connection you make between polls and GOTV is interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, as I understand it, the campaign is the candidate and the people working to get the candidate elected. The campaign can legitimately use polls to decide where to allocate resources (e.g., money for ad buys, themes for ads, on-the-ground person-to-person outreach). However, it's not legitimate for a campaign to publicize the poll numbers, as voters should be motivated by the campaign's message rather than by fear of being behind in the polls. Is this a fair representation of what you're saying? I don't feel I've captured it quite right, as I can't figure out how to tie in the entertainment aspect of polls. Also, I'm not happy with my choice of the word "fear" as the driving aspect of motivation. Acknowledging that I may not have captured your argument correctly, I'm going to move forward, fully willing to abandon it if it ends up relying on parts that I've misunderstood. For one, I'm not sure where to draw the line of who is involved in a campaign, and therefore who should know about poll results. There are people who are paid to work on the campaign, so it seems clear they are part of the campaign. And there are people who spend a lot of time volunteering, so I think it's fair to consider them as part of the campaign. There are people who volunteer less, for example donating a few evenings working for phone banks, or perhaps working in IT or data management, or working on the polls themselves. Then there are people who aren't directly working for the campaign, but are passionate about their candidate (or perhaps passionately opposed to another), and either work on their own or self-organize. Maybe the line is that only people who are involved in decisions that require polling data should know the results? What justifies "needs to know"? Another question I have is about GOTV in general. The numbers I've seen show that over 40% of eligible voters didn't vote in the 2016 election. I think we agree that more people should vote. Some GOTV methods I've seen are general, non-partisan "Please vote" campaigns. Partisan ads often include admonishments to vote. There are also programs to help people get to the polls (for example, rides). Some of these are non-partisan, some partisan. Are these legitimate GOTV efforts? If the electorate is to be accountable for turnout, what other methods can they use? Should partisan ride-providing efforts have access to poll data to best allocate their resources? How about non-partisan groups, as polls may show which areas are expected to have lower turnout? As I said, I've responded to what I interpreted as your position before confirming that my interpretation is correct. I've done this in the interest of expediency, not to build a straw man. So please let me know how my interpretation can be improved if it's not correct. Thanks!
mikeash 10y ago
Did they have her with an insurmountable lead, or did they have her with a decent lead still within the margin of error which got misinterpreted? I'm starting to wonder if the overconfidence in a Clinton victory boils down to assuming that errors are independent when they really aren't. Specifically, did they assume swing states might go one way or the other individually, rather than that they might move as a block? There was a lot of talk about how there were a bunch of states that favored Clinton and she only needed to win one of them. Pulling numbers out of my rear end, if she had a 50% chance of winning each of 8 states, and she only needed one, you might assume her odds of winning the election are 99.6% (255 out of 256). But if they all swing together, then her odds of winning would only be 50%.